Re: "draft-wilde-sms-uri-19" available

hello dan.

> I went in mainly via the abstract and examples, like 90% of your
> readers will probably do. My main agenda when reading a new URI scheme
> spec is to ask "ok, what kinds of thing does this spec let me
> *identify*". So I tend to skip past the "verby" parts, ie. the actions
> made possible. My understanding of the work of a URI scheme definition
> (rather than a protocol that uses it) is that the thing that's being
> standardised is a set of identifiers. So I am not completely sure how
> action-related SHOULDs fit in. Did you consider making a separate
> protocol for that? Would it make sense to separate out those aspects?

identifiers with no associated actions are of limited use (not useless, 
but in many cases, a lot of the value of URIs lies in the way how you 
can interact with the identified resources using some well-known 
mechanism; mailto: and tel: are the two examples most closely related to 
the proposed scheme). i am not quite sure what you refer to by saying 
"did you consider making a separate protocol for that"; the protocol i 
am using (and not defining) is SMS, and the proposed URI scheme allows 
clients to identify and support interactions with endpoints supporting 
that protocol. in a mechanism that's not rather retrieval-oriented 
(http:, for example, is mostly about that), but more focused on 
interacting with a peer based on some addressing scheme and some 
communications protocol, the most important thing is the action; the 
fact that you can send a message to that endpoint.

i am pretty sure i am missing something here, and maybe it would help be 
to better understand your concerns if you could make a concrete 
suggestion of how you think the spec or some wording could be improved?

thanks and cheers,

erik wilde   tel:+1-510-6432253 - fax:+1-510-6425814
        dret@berkeley.edu  -  http://dret.net/netdret
        UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool)

Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 21:33:08 UTC